Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 11:30am:


like i said, separatist terrorists kill as well, and given that there were more separatist attacks and more arrrests of separatists that were planning attacks then the separatists would represent a bigger threat.

did u read the whole report? why are u debating that muslim terrorists represent a bigger threat when the report itself states that there were more non-muslim terrorist attacks and more non-muslim terrorist suspects arrested?

the report only stated that intelligence agencies are focusing more on muslim terrorists, not that they are a bigger threat. maybe these countries governments should look at the facts and focus more attention on those that launch more attacks.

Quote:


u previously stated all terrorists are muslim, i gave u an example of ones that are not. whether they were reported, or whether are not following christian teachings is irrelevant.

bottom line, they committed violent acts in the name of religion and that religion was not islam and therefore u cannot say "all muslims are terrorists".

Aussies fight Taliban in safe havens
Email Print Normal font Large font July 19, 2007 - 8:35PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementIn just over a month of operations in Afghanistan, Australian special forces have fought the Taliban, inflicting unknown casualties.

No Australians have been hurt.

In a rare interview, the commander of Australian special forces, Major-General Mike Hindmarsh, said the priority job of the 300-member task group was to create a secure environment for the Australian reconstruction task force to operate in Oruzgan province in south-central Afghanistan.

Their job is also to take the fight directly to the Taliban.

This is a region which formed the heartland of the former Taliban regime and the insurgents have long used the rugged and remote country as a sanctuary.

Major General Hindmarsh confirmed that the Australian troops patrolling in the Oruzgan hinterland had been in contact with Taliban forces.

"There have been a number of smallish contacts which have been successful from our point of view," he said.

Asked about Taliban casualties, Major General Hindmarsh declined to go into detail.

"But it has gone well," he said.

The Australian special forces task group comprise members of the Special Air Service Regiment, army commando battalion, plus support units.

Major General Hindmarsh said their mode of operation was not to wait for the Taliban to come to them.

"It is actually to go to them," he said.

"It's to go to their areas that they traditionally have regarded as their sanctuaries, their safe-havens, where they have felt safe, where they can regenerate, recuperate and prepare for future operations in places such as Kandahar or Tarin Khowt.

"We want to take the battle to them and make them uncomfortable in the areas where ordinarily they have been very comfortable.

"This is what disruption is all about and we do that for long periods of time."

Major General Hindmarsh said this was a characteristic of the way Australian special forces did business.

"We get out there and spend a long time in their areas, which is not something they are used to."

During the last deployment of special forces to Afghanistan, which ended a year ago, Australian troops faced some of their toughest fighting since Vietnam.

This time around, many of the same troops are again operating on familiar terrain.

Major General Hindmarsh said the troops strongly believed what they were doing was worthwhile.

"Generally speaking, the Afghans are very courageous, stoic people who want to get on with their lives.

"The Taliban on the other side are totally the bloody opposite - they are a nasty piece of work.

"And so the soldiers feel that what they are doing is improving the livelihood of the general population and that is a good thing.

"If they are going to put their lives in harms way, we want to do it for a meaningful purpose and they feel they are."

© 2007 AAP



That's the way to win a war. Take it to them. The best defense is offense.

Australians are given plenty of opportunity to break that cycle, with government support, at significant cost to society. If they fail to take advantage of it then it is their fault. The situation is slightly more difficult in America, but the opportunities are still there. There comes a time when you have to put the blame back on the individual, and this Cho guy is a good example.

Not that blaming actually solves the problem, but trying to excuse Cho's actions or blame anyone else for what he did is a step in the wrong direction. To blame anyone else is to suggest that his actions were justified or somehow reasonable.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 4:49pm:



This equals that in your eyes freediver-and none has tried to justify anything ,but it is ,what it is.

Why is there an underclass from where these kids came and who's fault is it.?

We cannot blame kids who are a product of the system from whence they came. We CAN blame the system--shouldnt we require more in they way of Social Justice support from our Government.?

And Freediver just saying they get plenty of support and they dont take advantage of it..is shooting from the hip.



Provide some proof please!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 9:39pm:



Yes that what I just said Sprint..care to elaborate?

Whos fault for instance is the poverty and ignorance?

i want to know why this killing spree over in Virginia hasn't been labelled a terrorist attack?
is it because the guy wasn't muslim?

i often wonder if the guy was muslim, then how would the media portray the incident? i have no doubt it would be portrayed as a terrorist action.

guest,

have the pic of jolie in my head.

Still comes back to young vulnerable socially depleted kids made susceptible thru lack of support thru a family values system and the Government not providing enough support for families in ways that catch these kids who slip thru the cracks.

Why make everything into a terrorist issue? It was a copycat killing-he referred to the Columbine shooters a few times.

If they had intended to scare people in order to promote some ideology or poltiical issue, that would be terrorism. This was more personal I think.